-- members have not read the bills. tohink when it comes immigration reform, moving through this in a methodical, step-by-step approach, allows members to read the bills, understand the bills, and, frankly, allows the american people to have greater confidence around what we are doing and that we are doingin ae of. ladies first. [laughter] it doesn't cost anything to be nice. [laughter] why should house republicans

be in favor of immigration that possibly includes when in the house districts, citizens are majority white? >> we have a broken immigration system. the legal immigration system is cumbersome. it does not work very well. 40% of those who are here undocumented came here legally. there has been no real good system to be able to track those people and to be in force that part of our immigration laws. when you look at where the visas go. you have all heard the details. the current system needs to be fixed. by the american people to come here and do their work on behalf of them when it

comes to the government. we have a broken system. i made a strong case yesterday that it needs to be fixed and republicans ought to be part of the solution. it is always in the party's best interest when we're doing it the right thing for the country. do you believe you can have a bipartisan conversation when you have not passed the -- not answered the question about the path to psittaci citizenship? >> my hope is to continue solving the problem. that is what i plan to do. >> does that preclude the conversation? >> i don't think so. >> based on what we heard yesterday from your colleagues,

do you think there is any chance for some kind of smaller bill that includes legal incentives or a path to citizenship? >> welcome we're going to find out. is clear from the conversation yesterday that the vast majority of our members do believe we have to wrestle with this problem. they also believe that we need to do this in a step-by-step, common-sense approach. i would add that it is clear that securing our borders and having the ability to enforce our immigration laws are the first big steps in this process. while i was encouraged by the comments in the meeting we had with our members yesterday, it is going to take some bipartisan cooperation in order to move this process along. >> sir, where did you get the

authority to move the farm bill to the floor and does it not violate what you're just saying? >> it is an unusual situation, not something i would prefer to do, but the bill we have on the floor is the same bill that was on the floor about 3 weeks ago with the exception of one or two sentences. were in a situation where know what the bill is and i do not believe it violates the rule or the spirit of the rule. go-ahead. there's a lot of discussion about whether or not the intelligence community has been forthright. are you confident in the intelligence community when they are not being forthright? >> i have confidence in our chairman to hold their witnesses accountable. in this case, i think chairman

rogers of the intelligence committee is fully capable of holding witnesses accountable for their test >> do you believe immigration reform needs twait resolution of some of the big fiscal issues coming up in september, and have you a timetable or deadline in mind where this realistically needs to get done? >> what i have been trying to do is to help the house go through a methodical process for fixing a broken immigration system. through all the conversations of occurred with my own members and with democrats, it is clear the dealing with this in bite sized chunks, that members can digest and the american people can digest, is the smartest way to go.

i am much more concerned about doing it right than i am about meeting some deadline. >> about a year ago, you're having a conversation with senator read about making sure there was not a government shutdown. this year, things seem a bit murkier. the white house has issued a veto threat against the corporations bill. have you begun these conversations with the white house? are you confident that these things can be handled discreetly and without much controversy in september? >> we have not had any conversations about the potential cr, but i do not see any big challenges. the law is the law. the budget control act from almost two years ago to a set of discretionary spending numbers. , aalso know that in the law

if the super committee could not come to an agreement, sequestration would go into effect. the numbers are there and it will continue to be there until there is an agreement where we have some reforms that have put us on a path to balance the budget over the next 10 years. -- known thatnoun s lost in the latino community in the last election. the chamber of commerce supports this bill. the rnc and many republicans have said it is time to modernize. do you not risk putting republicans the disadvantage -- at a disadvantage with the fastest growing electoral group in a generation? >> i didthis was an

opinion show. we're not going to do the senate bill. i have said this since may 23rd. the senate bill, in my view, is flawed. i don't believe that the triggers for border security are appropriate. and it is going to allow process to start and continue without the border being secure. that, and i do not leave the internal enforcement mechanisms in the senate bill are going to give the american people the confidence that we will in fact unlimited flow of undocumented workers from coming to our country. so, we're not going to do the senate bill. i have also made clear that the house is going to do its job. i'm doing everything i can to insure that the house moved to this process. our committees are doing good work. i'm going to continue to move this process in a step-by-step,

common-sense way. thank you. >> you guys need latinos to win in the future. you cannot win on all white votes for the presidency. >> this is more about doing the right thing for the country. if people want to get into a political conversation, i do not think it is a perk for it. we have a broken immigration system. it needs to be fixed. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] house minority leader nancy pelosi also spoke to reporters today. this is 20 minutes. >> they have called a vote. it seems like a time did exactly. .o let me try to be brief as you know, members of congress went home last week to celebrate our independence, the fourth of july, and to hear from our .onstituents

190 days have passed since the start of the 113th congress, 110 days since the senate passed a budget. we still do not have a jobs bill and we still do not have a budget. this is what the american people want us to do. america is waiting. they want us to act. democrats have put forward a budget proposal to promote jobs and growth, a to invest in innovation and infrastructure in our country and to bring down the deficit. growth with jobs, that is what the budget should do. enacting the budget and replacing the devastating cuts of the sequester are necessary steps for the sake of our economy and our national success. yesterday, secretary hittle said if the cuts are not lifted by october 1st -- secretary haig said of the cuts are not

lifted by october 1st, we will be a much greater risk to mean a national security commitment. that is a pretty strong statement. it is time to engage in fair and open debate on our priorities in a budget that replaces the cuts, reduces the deficit, creates jobs, supports the middle class and takes us into the future. it is a stunning thing that we have no jobs bill and we have no budget. as the republicans have said, regular order on the budget. 110 days since the regular order in the senate has moved forward. comprehensive immigration reform. yesterday was a significant day in the cause of comprehensive

immigration reform so far. president george w. bush urged a positive resolution to the debate and expressed hope that we keep a benevolent spirit in mind and understand the contribution immigrants make to our country. i have said over and over again the president bush has been the best on immigration. he understood it intellectually. he believed in it. as a former governor of texas, he had knowledge of why it would really be important. yesterday, there was a white house report that said immigration reform will strengthen the economy, create jobs, boost growth, lift wages and increased productivity, reduce the deficit, and strengthen social security. yet again, another reason why we should be passing the bill. with members of the hispanic caucus to discuss the way forward on immigration reform. speakerhe letter to

boner asking -- to speaker been boehner asking for a compromise. must and in the future we keep the momentum moving forward for comprehensive immigration reform. as we gather here, we're seeing a vote on the floor right now for the farm bill. tos is really, as i said, the nth degree. the speaker said one regular order. we're going to do their respective work of our committees. the committees passed a thertisan bill out of

agriculture committee which has now been totally ignored by the republican leadership. instead, they're putting a bill on the floor that they conjured up last night. i cannot tell you much about it except that it has no nutrition, no food stamps, no support from the farm groups, no -- has less deficit-reduction than the senate farm bill, and it does not have democratic support. its blitz farm and nutrition initiatives into two different -- it splits farm and nutrition initiatives into two different measures. you know that. when we did the farm bill, we had such overwhelming support we were a legal -- we were able to override a presidential veto two times. course ofng this action the republicans have chosen, in danger in support for

farmers, ranchers, food security, rural communities and the jobs of 16 million .mericans again, the bill does not have support of any element, whether it is the nutrition site, the food stamp side, food banks and the rest. is -- we will see if it has enough votes to pass on the floor. true just handed me a letter -- drew just handed me a letter you should have. it is a letter to the chairman forhe civil liberties highlighting critical concerns that need immediate review. in recent weeks, concerns about our intelligence community have underscored the need to uphold our obligations to protect our national security but also to preserve privacy and civil

liberties. that balance, again, is important to america. in 2007, democrats empowered the privacy and civil liberty -- when a patriot act was passed, after it was passed, there were some of us were insisting on a privacy and civil liberty board. and we got the majority, h.r. 1, the first bill the democrats put on the floor as a democratic majority, was to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, one of which was a strong civil liberty and privacy force. we had beginnings of it. this would strengthen it with greater tools to increase oversight, accountability and transparency for our national security strategy. again, i have sent you this letter.

it really addresses 4 points, whether the executive and judicial branches are interpreting our laws in a manner consistent with congressional intent and with the expectation of american privacy and civil liberties. there's several concerns the democrats of raised about this .ssue over time transparency, we are insisting upon for the fisa courts. we have legislation to this extent. understanding court decision in cases, why cannot some of that the noun, at least after the fact? and during the fact, the government should use new technologies to more successfully balance security

and privacy. let's just subject this to some scrutiny. what do we need to do to get the information to protect the american people? congress will continue to perform its oversight function and work with the board and other agencies to meet our first responsibility is, to protect peopleend the american and their liberties contained in our constitution. with that, i will take any questions you may have. >> do you think there is any virtue in delaying the individual mandate? >> absolutely not. i do not think it is virtuous of all. impact -- in fact, the point is that the mandate was not delayed. certain reporting by businesses that could be perceived as

onerous, that reporting requirement was delayed, partially to review how it would work and how it could be better. it was not a delay of the mandate for the businesses and there should not be a delay of the mandate for individuals. ofspeaking of the oversight fisa, there had been some reports and some have expressed when the intelligence communities were conducting oversight. what consequences should there be when intelligence communities are not being forthright with overseers? >> i think we have to have oversight of the oversight. that is one of the things we did when we had the majority. we had to have a compromise in 20 on the bill.

what that did was to strengthen the requirements for oversight and the rest. congress has a responsibility, again, to protect and defend the american people. congress has a responsibility to fund operations that do just that. congress needs the information in order to properly honor its toponsibilities, and we need know how the balance between security and liberty and privacy is respected. i have had, as you probably know, for more than a dozen years, an ongoing conversation about what the a administration -- including democratic and republican administrations, we have said that they are custodians of intelligence, but not owners, and they need to share much more of that information with us.

>> can you tie the purse strings to intelligence? >> one of the problems we had during the iraq war was that so ,uch was done by supplemental so it practically usurped the power of the intelligence committee to have the hearings, to make the budget decisions and the rest. just a matter of the history, more on this subject than you may want to know, and authorization by the intelligence committee was always considered almost exactly the appropriation. in other words, we have access to information that others do not have, so let us make these , andions about funding the budgeting is really important on intelligence as you make those traces. those that had the

information were effectively the appropriators. with the iraq war, much of that changed because they were doing a supplemental, so it was all coming through the appropriations committee. therefore, it weakened the -- i do not want to say the power, but yes, weakened the authority of the intelligence committee. we had to return to regular order so that the people who were getting the information about what our challenges were, what our possibilities were, whether it was technologically or whatever it happened to be, what the priorities were, what the president's priorities were, whoever the president might be, that we could make those decisions. that is one of the reasons why the 9/11 commission recommended that there be a joint house and senate committee on this. we could not get the senate to

go along with it, but we did create a committee that was appropriators and intelligence working together. you had all of the intelligence information to impact more strongly, and the staffing that goes with it, to impact on appropriations. so, for these and other reasons, whether it is budget, priorities, civil liberties, privacy and the rest, congressional oversight is very, very important. you cannot do it effectively unless the information is very clearly shared. yes. clear at the end of the republicans immigration meeting yesterday the republicans are very divided on what to do about legalization. they do think it is very unlikely that any action will be taken on immigration until the

fall. you have any concerns about the delay? >> i am concerned about the delay because, why? why do we delay? why do not to skip back to the business of doing a bill? i have said to the speaker that i am very respectful of any way that he wants to bring it to the ,loor, in parts, in whole however he wants to do it. but we should go to conference and then have a further discussion. delay creates problems, but i am optimistic. i believe that we will have immigration reform for the simple reason that the american people want us to have it. if it does not happen this year, it is unlikely it is going to happen in an election year.

in the words of president bush that he spoke yesterday in his speech and has over time, we have to respect what immigration is to our country. i believe it is the source of the constant reinvigoration of america, and the people can come here with their hopes, dreams, aspirations to make things better for their families. that is completely in synch with and alues of our founders new order for the century. was predicated on the idea that we would have a responsibility, all of us, to make the future better for the next generation. view, immigrants make america more american. we have to think as president

bush exalted as to give, to think in those kinds of terms. >> president bush's comments yesterday seem to have been met with a "so what" attitude from the republican conference. what makes you believe or think that immigration or any other issue would be [indiscernible] >> your question is well taken. i am not giving up on background checks either. i do believe that congress will be in sync with the american people. it is just a matter of time. issue,immigration republicans in the senate had and he epiphany when they saw how many latino voters voted democratic.

they know how important it is to have immigration reform. from that, it is absolutely essentials. we have a broken system. the president and the cbo have reported that this will reduce the deficit by billions of dollars and -- let me find the it will create jobs, a boost growth, raise wages, increased productivity, reduce the deficit and strengthen social security. there are reasons to do this thend political aspects of election. lenka andw, i quote all the time. public sentiment is -- lincoln ball the time. public sentiment is everything.

support immigration reform. badges, business, bible, many of those folks are republicans. they have been very enthusiastic overtime and getting impatient about congress taking action. it would be a real failure on our part if we could not find a path to go to conference, to air our differences, to come up with the bill. i just have time for one more question because i cannot miss this vote. >> there seemed to be a deal in the senate. >> would that not be great? with democrats in the house go along with a market-based system if it had the kind of protection [indiscernible] >> as you know, we have our own -- we split on our motion to

recommit to what the president was proposing. but until i see the bill -- have you seen it? >> knode. >> -- no. >> until we see it coming it is hard to say how we would respond to it. , it has been hard to find a way to get the job done, which we must do. the burden on young people to go to college is really unconscionable. this is a fight we have been engaged in a long time with republicans. i do not support the republican proposal that came out of the house. what is happening in the senate sounds more in the interest of helping middle-income families enablese who aspire to their children to receive a higher education, which is essential to innovation in our country. and by the way, nothing brings more money to the treasury than investing in the education of

the american people. so while i know they have some money concerns that they're going back and forth with in the senate too, remember, nothing, nothing you can come up with brings more money to the treasury than early childhood, k-12, higher education, postgraduate, a lifetime learning. if you want to reduce the deficit, investing in education. thank you very much. >> the house today approved a farm bill by a vote bill2126- 216-208. opposed theucus farm bill and launched a protest. here is that debate.

>> further embellishments will result in a deduction of time from the yielding member. ther. speaker, i yield to gentleman from florida, mr. hastings for unanimous consent. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in very strong opposition to the farm bill and underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from american families. >> without objection, the time is charged. >> i yield to the gentleman from new york.

>> thank you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rolen the airline bill because it hurts america's children. correct -- rule and the underlying bill because it

>> mr. speaker, and ask unanimous consent to revise my remarks.

>> without objection. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentlewoman from florida. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule india underlying bill because it hurts the children of -- and the underlying bill because it hurts the children of america. >> without objection. >> appealed to the gentleman from wisconsin. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to rule and the underlying bill because it hurts america's children. >> appealed to the gentleman from north carolina. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i have a parliamentary inquiry.

i have received a copy of the bill. it appears to have no nutrition information at all. is this a printing error? >> the gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman from massachusetts. toi ask unanimous consent extend and revise my remarks in total opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts america's children. >> the chair will receive a message. >> mr. speaker, a message from the senate. >> i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that [indiscernible]

>> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> for us is, i yield for a consent request. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in america. >> with out objection. >> appealed to the gentleman the texas -- i yield to gentleman from texas. gentlewoman from texas. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because [indiscernible] objection, the gentlewoman's time will be charged. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from .merica's poor families >> without objection. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill role and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor.

>> mr. speaker, i >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous in opposition to the "farmville" role in the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. >> ideal to the gentleman from illinois. >> she is recognize. strong in very pposition because it increases property. >> i yield to the gentleman from new york. >> she is recognize. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in

total and strong opposition to the farm bill role and the underlying bill because it serves america's children. >> without objection, the gentlewoman will be charged. >> i yield to the gentlewoman frn. consent toanimous inise and extend my remarks strong opposition to the farm bill role and the underlying it hurts of the working poor. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentlewoman from texas. consent toanimous revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill role and the underlying bill because it takes food from children and it increases the

number of starving children in america. >> without objection, the gentlewoman time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. referring to your pervious ruling, one is allowed to give explanation for their opposition . those words are to be counted as part of the unanimous consent. >> and the opinion of the chair, the woman seated declarative statements. i'm trying to be fair. >> can you declare what the interpretation is for excessiveness? >> the chair will judge each statement as to its simple declarative nature. >> continuing the inquiry is the amount of passion in your voice in opposition to the idea that this bill creates a poor starving children? >> the gentlewoman has not stated a point. >> mr. speaker, how much time

does the speaker have to the unanimous request? >> a quarter. the gentleman from massachusetts? >> i am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from california. >> she is recognize. >> i asked in animus consent to revise and extend our marks in strong opposition to the farm bill and the underlying bill because it contributes to hunger in america. >> the gentleman from massachusetts? >> i yield to the gentlewoman from maryland. >> she is recognize. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to advise and consent our marks to the farm bill and the underlying rule because it increases hunger in america. mr. speaker, i have a parliamentary inquiry. >> she will state her inquiry. >> is it in order to amend an

underlying bill and rule that currently provides subsidies to corporate farms while children and families go hungry and a school lunch programs are decimated and meals on wheels are taken the disabled and senior citizens? >> the manager of the rule has to yield for any amendment. i yield to the gentleman from georgia. >> he is recognize. toi ask unanimous consent advise of her semi-remarks to the opposition to the firm to roll and the underlying bill because it takes food and nutrition from working families. please?nt inquiry one not this day go down in history as one of the most -- >> the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i would like to yield to the gentleman from illinois.

>> he is recognize. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill to the rule and to the underlying bill because it away fromsafety net america's poor children. >> without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i am happy to yield from the gentleman from texas. >> he is recognize. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in a stronger position to the farm bill role in the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor. >> without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentleman from georgia. >> he is recognized.

>> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend our marks in strong opposition to the farm bill role in the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor and violates the long- standing partnership between agriculture users and our nations nutrition programs. >> the gentleman's time will be charged. he will status inquiry. >> isn't it true that this rule takes the bill that came out of the authorizing committee and separates into two separate bills that ultimately hurts the working poor of the country? interpretir will not the underlying meaning. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentlelady from california. >> she is recognize. >> i ask unanimous consent to

revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill role and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from america's poor families and takes food out of the mouths of children. her time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. i yield to the gentleman from south carolina. >> he is recognize. >> think you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill, the rule, and the underlying bill because it significantly increases are ready in america. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i will yield to the gentleman from georgia. >> he is recognized. >> thank you. the house is not in order.

>> the house will come to order. the gentleman is recognize. >> think you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm and the underlying bill because it increases poverty in america. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentleman from texas. >> he is recognize. cac, i ask of the unanimous consent to advise -- to revise and extend our marks in strong opposition to the farm and the underlying world because it hurts america's poor children and senior citizens. >> his time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts.

for what purposes are according the -- is it your inquiry? >> what the gentleman just did was one sentence, but it had an and and gave a second reason it was opposed. the first reason because it increased poverty, and the second under my children. that was the same sentence. it seems there was little menterence between the state, that preceded it for which he did not charge time. theuld like to understand parliamentary difference that the speaker proceeds in those two statements. >> the gentleman engaged in an embellishment. >> he stated to reasons he was opposed. is the chairs ruling -- is the uling the reason

for the opposition? >> he prefaced his remarks. explain to the american public as to the framework for which he was speaking. ever present a large group of americans and hispanic americans who have a large number of representatives in this bunch. can you not explain the is the person from maryland, for instance, or from some other state? >> and the opinion of the chair, the gentleman engaged in an ability to. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> and went to yield to the gentleman from new york. >> he is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor and leaves children without food and hurts seniors on an everyday basis. >> the gentleman's time will be charged.

the gentleman from massachusetts. >> mr. speaker? promised her inquiry. three --ment parlimentary inquiry? that he embellished by introducing himself as the head of the spanish caucus. the gentleman who just spoke did not do so, but articulated through reasons he was opposed to the bill. is withino me that the contemplation of the unanimous consent request. if we start parsing that people can only articulate one reason, i would suggest to the parliamentarians and the speaker that will establish a president which will be difficult and subjective for implementation. i asked the speaker to further objection wass

charged to the other man's time. >> the chair is looking at a simple declarative statement, not multiple ones. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> further problem entry according? -- further parliamentary inquiry? >> it were going to parse this to that extent, i suggested the speaker and to those advising the speaker that we are going down a road which is dangerous. clearly, if there was an extended time, one could understand that. very shorttwo isphetical phrases inconsistent with your previous rulings as to when you would not charge the time against mr. mcgovern.

when mr.erstood that perceived at be greater explanation that what was wanted. simpleks'statement was a statement with two prophetical phrases explaining why he was objecting. that is consistent with the rules. >> the gentleman will suspend. the chair will continue to it i await each individual's the clerk of statements and make the judgment there with regards to embellishment according to the previous statements that have been made. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> how much time is been charged against us for these requests so far? >> two minutes total. >> can i ask for a unanimous

consent that the time that is been charged against us be restored? >> i object to that. the objection is heard. the gentleman from massachusetts. the requested.ke >> the gentleman can make his request. >> i ask unanimous consent that the time starts against this be restored because we are operating under a closed rule on an important piece of legislation. >> is there objection? >> yes. >> the gentleman for messages is. --i would like to yield from to the gentleman for minnesota. >> is recognize. >> i ask unanimous consent to -- to the farm bill

-- and opposition to the farm bill and the underlying bill. >> the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentlewoman from -- >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in very strong opposition to the farm bill rolling -- rule and the underlying bill because veterans in my district, including children and patriotic families across america are hungry. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentlewoman from california. consent toanimous

revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill and the underlying bill because it increases longer of our constituents throughout the country. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. gentlewoman from new york. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to this mean- spirited farm bill and the underlying bill because it takes food and nutrition from those most vulnerable among us. is this what compassionate conservatism is about? >> hard time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentleman from

mississippi. is recognize. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill and the underlying bill because it increases longer, not only in my congressional district, but hunger and all districts in america. gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. >> is recognize. consent toanimous revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farmer rule and the underlying rule because it increases hunger america. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentleman from rhode island. >> he is recognize. >> preminger inquiry?

>> state the inquiry. request, iating my mistake a single reason -- i state a single reason it is not charged. if i state multiple statements -- multiple reasons, will it be charged? >> the chair will not respond to hypotheticals. he is recognize. unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in america, hurts seniors, and hurts the working poor. >> has time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield to the gentleman from california. >> is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in

opposition to the farm bill role and the underlying rule because it hurts the working poor. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. the gentleman from missouri. >> he is recognize. >> thank you. i would like to request to revise andent extend my remarks in opposition to the farm bill and the bill because there symbiosisdecade between urban america and the firm community. i really come to this realm for a lot of reasons, most negative,

because i did not come to enemy.s to make an i came to make a difference. here trying to put politics above productive policy. ideology above the injured. because i believe in capitulation, but compromise. i believe that this bill is doing enormous damage, not only to the politics, but to the nation. of the elected leaders u.s. congress -- that is not a club. we are the congress of the united states of america, the most powerful nation on this planet. we can take care of all of the

people. there are poor people in rural areas that i represent. i will never turn my back on them or on children in the urban core. itbject to the bill because will not just create tension among us, but the people in this country who depend on us. if we are about anything, it is about to take care of the people. .hat is why we're here i get frustrated and dizzy being in this body. the only way i can stand up is to keep my eyes on something that does not move. what does not move is the people

of the united states, specifically those who are hurting. my mind will stay right there on people who do not move. the hurt, they wanted -- the wounded. we need to take care of everybody in this country. i cannot be silent. if we continue to divide the nation, then we think we are doing something good because we are able to say something nasty to somebody, the people of this country deserve better. we deserve better. have never attacked people on the basis of their party or their ideology. i will not do that. i will not abandon what is right. i will not abandon the things i keep my eyes on. i will not support this bill. in countriesple

that i represent were selling ruralo missouri, a county, has greater poverty than jackson county, where can the city sits. this is not a system with put in place to protect the rural areas. i was born in walks a hatchet, texas. my dad said my mother to college. i never lived in a house with indoor plumbing until i was eight years old. i lived in public housing. my father struggled. with a little help, he sent for children to college. my dad lives in his own house right now. for is ae are asking

little help. just a little help. who can they turn to? it is the pray that u.s. congress. [applause] >> this time will be charged. -- his time will be charged. the gentleman will state his inquiry. [inaudible] >> the gentleman is correct. the gentleman from massachusetts. 4.5 minutes total for all

requests? this is notwithstanding that we may close rule and everybody stayed within the limit? i asked that our time be reinstated. >> is there objection? >> yes. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. he is recognize. >> i would like to appeal the ruling of the chair. there is a ruling before the house at this time. -- there is no ruling before the house at this time. inquiry?mentary >> the gentleman from maryland is recognize. >> would it be in order to move

time not bet the as aed to mr. mcgovern representative of the ranking member of the rules committee? is there an order we could vote on? >> there is not an up for promotion on the topic. -- there is not an appropriate motion for the topic. further all mentoring worry -- parliamentary inquiry? >> on the other hand, this is an i want to ask my friend as chairman of the rules committee if -- about his objection.

this bill was not noted for consideration until last night. it comes to the floor with less than 12 hours of preparation. understand his view, it not because it is the role, but he cousin is fair -- but because it is fair, i suggest that he withdraw his objection. i do not know how much time mr. cleaver took. that way we can have the full 30 minutes debate. will he consider that? when i have the time, i will offer an explanation. >> i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from texas is

recognize. minority whip, i encourage him to please yecognize that his request ma -- as we stated last night in the rules committee, i encourage her to offer me an opportunity to explain, not just the position, but what i believe is the intent of what we are attempting to do. and the vote that was held for the farm bill, 171 republicans voted for it, 62 republicans voted against it. for the farm bill, 24 democrats voted for, 172 democrats voted against it. this means the firm will did not pass.

and asnot pass the body, a result of the significance of the underlying legislation of the farm bill that does include provisions related to snap, the republican leadership up to and including the speaker of the house and the majority leader felt it was very important for this body to as quickly as we returned to offer a bill that could be passed with the hope , andcould be passed analysis of the bill was done. remembering that only 24 democrats helped pass the previous bill. anare attempting to separate offer today a rule and the

underlying legislation, which i'll fully will pass and go to conference, and the senate, because they have passed their in farm bill, has included provisions where they discuss snap. as a result of that, it will be included in their bill. on a conference measure. the house at this point, if we pass this part, could go to -- and wouldould be without resolution. it would not have passed an amendment or a piece which would discuss it. ,n essence, my comp freeze which would include the

gentleman from in a soda -- from minnesota, would go to the conference without resolution from this body. that is all we are talking about. it is fully debatable under the conference. we would not have made a decision to change existing laws. the change in existing law would mean that the senate conference is would stick to their positions and we would not have a position to cut a penny. believe that this is an honest ,ttempt to get us to go bypassing part of the farm bill, to get to conference. the tactics against that are to keep us from going to conference

, where we would show up with whatever we pass. if i have overstated this or understated this, i would encourage the minority whip to engage me in a colloquy at this time. i would yield to the gentleman on the substance of what i have spoken about to feel free to enlighten me and for us to work through this very important issue. i would yield to the gentleman. >> thank you for yelping. >> this side of the aisle believes the passage of the "farmville" is very important. it is important for our agricultural interest, and our furnace. also, for those relying on nutritional programs and support. arehare the view and strongly in favor of the view of passing a farm bill. would tell the gentleman that the farm bill for

the past two years has passed out of the committee with a and any of democrats overwhelming amount of republicans. it was not brought to the floor. it was because of the controversies on your side, not our side of the aisle. was in support of the farm bill. thought theyted he were be sufficient democrats with republicans to pass the farm bill. you lost 62 votes on your side of the all. notwithstanding the fact that you adopted three amendments during the course of consideration of the farm bill that mr. peterson advised you would undercut his ability to

support the bill. i tell my friend that what has bill was ahe farm bipartisan bill supported by a majority of democrats in the committee. ,lso by the ranking democrat mr. peterson. it came to the floor, and that partisanship was undermined by the amendments that were adopted. that was to the knowledge of mr. lucas. we now find ourselves in a was littleere there or no discretion. not with me, not with nancy pelosi, about how we could move forward in creating a better -- byisan coalition with recognizing opposition of both parties.

this could asked in a constructive way could only have been reached in a partisan copper mice. unfortunately, we have seen where we have gone to an ultra- partisan resolution to pass the up aheard also to pick .umber of the 62 unfortunate because the gentleman is correct. i respect his observations. century, we have passed a farm bill in bipartisan fashion with consideration for the nutrition of people in our country to make sure that those without food -- >> reclaiming my time. i would encourage the gentleman

to still stand. we are at a point on the floor where we are rightly or wrongly attempting to be forthright and honest about what is in the bill and what our intent are. i would hope the gentleman would recognize that what we have someully done is excluded extraneous pieces, which might -- it would cause the build to fail. we have come to know decision of the house. do is take trying to this to conference without any decision thereon.

that is not an indication of a on the partingness of the republican leadership or any of our members. it says that we could not come to a decision at this point. what we are trying to do is to move forward and get to conference. hope doesman i recognize that the senate has beken, our conferences will at the table, and would not have a position that has been taken by this house. in no way would it mean that could -- that it cannot be discussed. i would would encourage the gentleman to understand that a current loan would provide that. -- a current law would prevail. decision.me to know >> i want everybody who will be watching this to understand that when the house of representatives cannot pass a bill, it is arm

new low. >> the house is not a order. >> the house will come to order. >> the reverence in which we hold our farmers is a strong that the "farmville" could almost be a part of the ledge of allegiance. that this isnt out the second time the house would likely not be able to pass a farm bill. i know i do not have to point out to my constituents on both sides of the aisle that the snap areram and other programs also farm programs. that is where the food comes from. when you take those programs away, you also hurt the farmers. we had an offensive attempt three weeks ago to defend the program. majority.rust the

prediction now. if they decide to bring up the nutrition program as a freestanding bill, the agriculture committee -- there's not a chance anywhere it could pass the house. -- we wereuse we had told that the fact that the republicans took the snap and nutrition program out of it would not be construed by the merrick and people. it is that they thought it was a piece of extremes matter that they could deal with and -- in another way. for all of usedy who have to go home and explain to the people that we represent spending $25se k, that ouree biggest trick here is to pass a bill that we know will never see

the light of day. almost all of them have a statement from the ministership policy that no way will the president signed a kind of bill like that. enough already. enough. we have disgraced ourselves before the country and the world. we are raising a generation of children who have not been adequately -- and i have one more minute? >> 30 seconds. >> august in this way. -- i will just end this way. i have never seen this kind of dysfunction. i am embarrassed to say that trying to feed people could be a reason why they would stop the farm bill, which has been a bipartisan bill and gone through what -- like a hot knife through butter. this is the lowest of the low. if we can't pass this, you know they can't run the house. i yield back the balance of my time.

>> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you. the here to tell you that opportunity for the rules committee to put the bill on the in 172 democrats voting against it. which meant that it did not make it out of the house. that is why we are here today. the bill didecause not pass. and our friends, the democrats, did not supply enough votes to make sure it would move forward. party is here trying to make sure that we get a second shot at passing the farm bill. that is what we intend to do.

i reserve my time. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. to the gentleman that the reason why we did not support the farm bill is because it with through 2 million of our citizens in the food stamp program. the purpose should not be to make more hungry people in america. i want to say to my friend the reason the "farmville" lost is because 62 of your people would not support your chairman. that is why the farm bill loss. the second reason is because you adopted three minutes that undercut poor people in america. [applause] so your responses been -- so your response has been to abandon them altogether so you can get the votes back. isn't that a shame?

i yield back. [applause] the gentleman will be reminded to address his remark's to the chair, not the body. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. of thes the intent republican leadership and this geordie party to have a bill that will be available and ready that can pass on what might be considered a step portion -- the snap portion of this bill. what we're tried to do today is to pass this bill on the farm portions/ it is a fair opportunity to take up the bill exactly as we were several weeks ago on debate, the rule, and on the things which has this house to have it say. that is what we are to the duty

-- to do today. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i asked include a reauthorization without any cuts . does it doma from texas yield to a consent? >> no, not for that reason. >> is our privilege to yield 11 minute to the gentleman from california. she is recognized for one minute. >> i think the gentleman for yielding and for his tremendous leadership on behalf of feeding the american people. it is a fundamental thing. family wise, a very -- a very important priority for all of us, except not in this house of representatives.

i rise today to thank the congressional black caucus. when they came to the floor to speak in a manner that they did against this legislation and for values that our country shares about being a community am a they spoke not just for the congressional by caucus, this book for america. they spoke for america. they have fought this fight over and over again. the inference to be drawn from their leadership is not that the black community is who benefits from food stems -- from food stamps. , inle in your districts rural america, who need us to

pass this legislation. you are taking food out of mouths of your own constituents. -- i amin america saying the word poverty. poverty in america seems to be a word that people get nervous about. among ourn america children is something shameful. but it is a reality. it has an impact on children. to have the uncertainty in their lives that property brings. that one property says in four of you will sleep hungry tonight, that is wrong. it is wrong for america. it is not consistent with our values. it does not represent the sense of community that makes america strong and great. -- to marciadge,

, to mr. clyburn, to all of i could name all of you because you have all been out there on the forefront of this. our democracy is as strong as we are as a people. the middle-class is the backbone of america. the aspirations of all americans to become part of the middle- class is what we should be addressing in congress. what are we doing? 190 days we have been in the session, and no jobs bill yet. the leadership of the republican party says they want regular order. overpassed a budget bill three months ago -- they passed a budget bill. over three months ago, the senate passed one. andrid of the sequestration

to proceed with a bill that and build therica infrastructure and create jobs and to do so in a way that builds community. the middle-class and gross american jobs. oftinguished leaderships this republican party says they want regular order and they have respect for their committees. the agriculture committee and a -- in a bipartisan way passed a bill out of the committee. i do not like the bill. butuld not have written it, republicans had the leadership. democrats are cooperated -- democrats cooperated. a bill came in a committee -- a bill came out of committee. bill ifld respect the it was taken up on the floor. the bill would have here bears

bill thatance to the came out of committee. actions of the republican leadership have been disrespectful to the committee presses. do not hand us the regular order or -- argument. off thecity to split nutrition parts of this bill is so stunning, it would be theking except it is one of worst things. stiff copper a dish or for honor, i cannot say that. if you prevent a bill from going for that addresses our food banks and nutrition needs for our country, what are you thinking? are you thinking? [applause]

so, i think you -- i thank you for your leadership on this. fight you are making for every person in america to live in a country of values. faith.that include our our faith tells us that to minister to the needs of cap is the creation is an act of worship. to ignore this needs is to dishonor the god who made us. this is wrong. even in this place, it crosses a threshold we should never go past. we should never go past it. this is totally out of the question. reasons i. one of the am involved in politics is because i see it as an extension

of my role as a mother. what drew me to this is that i saw everything that my kids had and i thought the best thing we could all do is to make sure that our children, for their own welfare, grow up in a country i call upon all were friends in the fayed community, and they are here on this issue as well as most of the farmers' groups and all the rest. there is nobody outside this body who supports this bill but cares about the values that we all possess to have within these walls. food out of the mouths of babies, that is a good policy? i don't think so. " no on this rule. on this rule.

[applause] >> members are again reminded to address their remarks to the chair, not to other members of the body. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> the republican leadership and a republican membership has great respect for men and women who have fallen on hard times. we have great respect for the millions of people who have lost their jobs. the speaker of the house is not in order. >> the gentleman from texas controls the time. the house will be in order. >> we have great respect for the many people who have lost their

jobs and continue to lose their jobs, full-time jobs that have gone to part-time jobs. we recognize that our country is facing very difficult times, and more difficult each and every day. it is our hope through this bill, and a falling opportunity, --make sure that the entire go directly to the conference and meet with the senate. that is what we are attempting to do today. insure that we get to a conference with a complete part of this bill, that is why we are here today and will be here in the immediate future, and i reserve the balance of my time. texas gentleman from reserves. but i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert in

the record a letter from the president of the american farm bureau federation in opposition to this bill. to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut. >> of 04 this bill is a vote to end nutrition programs in america. members on the other side of the aisle have already expressed that this morning. imagine referring to the nutrition titles of the farm bill as extraneous. extraneous. dealing with honker. dealing with people who have fallen on those hard times. dealing with their food insecurity and they are being hungry and it's going to bed hungry every night in this nation is extraneous.

that says it all. that tells you where their values are. before we consider the content of this legislation, take a minute to review what just has happened. shortly before 8:00 p.m. last a bille majority posted on line, announced the meeting to consider the bill. that violated their own rule of allowing least three days to review legislation. i have a copy of the bill right here. this is the bill. 608 pages. have my colleagues read all of the 608 pages? have they taken the time to know what is in it? did they understand that in 2014, in fact, what they have done bats to the deficit? no, instead we are recklessly pushing forward this partisan bill designed toat harm.

even more pernicious is the substance of this bill. which froze millions of american families aside. this removes the entire nutrition title from the farm bill, with no indication that the majority intends to take those programs in the near future. let's be clear about what this means. food stamps are the critical central span of our social safety -- social safety net. over 47 million americans, nearly half of them are children. thisf households receiving aid included child, a senior citizen, or an individual with a disability. these are the individuals and the people that this republican majority has just called extraneous. they are not extraneous. the bill before us would mean the death knell of the food

stamp program. the another nutrition programs that have been part of the farm bill for decades -- the other nutrition programs. this bill is immoral and is a serious risk to our society. speaker a said the letter opposing the splitting off of food programs. other religious leaders wrote a letter calling food stamps one of the most effective and important federal programs to combat hunger in the nation. a crucial part of the farm bill, relieving pressure on an overwhelmed perishes, cherries, food banks, pantries, and other emergency food providers. and yet this bill provides the way to gut the food stamp program. >> can the gentleman yield any further time? >> buckfield additional 15 seconds. >> historically the parkville has been a safety net for farmers and families. it is enjoyed by -- has enjoyed

bipartisan support up until now, until this majority has rent that support asunder. a vote for the bill is a vote in nutrition programs in america. the mouthsod out of of hungry children, seniors, veterans, disabled. these people are not extraneous. i urge my colleagues to reject this bill. >> on the other side of the capitol today, senate majority leader harry reid moved toward limiting the filibuster. he said republicans are using prohibit --ules to we spoke about with a congressional report. >> the senior congressional reporter for politico is joining us. what came out of the meeting between majority leader harry

reid and senate democrats on the proposed changes to filibuster rules? >> it sounds like harry reid is ready to go forward with the so- called nuclear option, to change the senate rule by 51 votes rather than the normal threshold of 67 votes. the higher threshold makes it harder for rules changes to occur. what he said he is so frustrated with the use of the minority party to block nominations and legislation for moving forward, that he is going to invoke this very unusual procedure to change the vote by 51 votes. he wants to invoke this nuclear option to essentially change the filibuster rules so no longer would 60 votes required to confirm -- to overcome a with executive branch nominees.

it only affects the executive branch positions. forward soto move that all center block and nominee for the epa, labor department, defense department, by requiring 60 votes. instead, 51 votes would be required to move forward. the majority of the senate. bewhat would the next step in the senate? >> there is going to be a joint meeting on monday evening in the just off theom senate floor. rarely dory rare, both parties decide to meet in one setting. they are going to talk about whether or not the senate should go forward. that seems to me to be a bit of a dog and pony show.

reid goingange mcconnelluld be if takes to his demand and allows them to be confirmed by 51 votes. right now that seems very unlikely, and reid is threatening to move forward with this unprecedented step. it could further weaken the filibuster rules. >> senate democrats have been toying with this idea for changing the filibuster rules for the last year or so. for thishe impetus latest effort? >> there are several nominees who are stuck, who harry reid has tried to get confirmed. richard cordray, that national labor relations board has several nominees to allow that agency continue to function. there are a couple of other

nominees who are waiting action from the labor department's. epa, it sounds like mcconnell will allow those votes to go forward. those are wrapped up in a larger fight that is before the supreme court involving the president's recess appointment authority, in which to move forward with richard cordray's nomination as well as the debate about whether the senate was actually in recess and the president was allowed to circumvent the senate. there is a constitutional fight pending before the supreme court regarding those nlrb nominees. those nominees are before the senate and harry reid wants to confirm them by an up or down vote.

a, saying he is not going to allow that to happen. >> what are republicans saying about what senator reid is planning to do? >> they are furious. , was on the floor earlier today and saying if we go , he will be the worst majority leader ever. this was a very personal exchange. they are warning that if this happens, if he invoked the nuclear option and sides it is decides he can change the of boats, they are going to do the same thing. they will continue to weaken the filibuster. to the point where it it may no longer exist. they say if that happens, the senate will be just like the house. the house passes legislation that will win a majority wants to pass something. if that happens, it will have

major impact on future presidents and a huge impact on the country. the republicans are speaking in very dire terms. >> thank you. senate majority leader harry reid and minority leader mitch mcconnell today debated's filibuster rules on the senate floor. here is a look. >> madam president, i move to proceed executive session to account no. 51. the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor? all those opposed say no. have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination.

>> in accordance with of provisions of rule 22 wehrheim move to bring to a close the debate on nomination of richard cordray of ohio to be director, bureau of consumer financial protection, but 18 senators us followed. >> i asked that we not read the names. >> without objection. toi now move to proceed legislative session. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor? all those opposed say no. .he ayes do have it >> the motion is agreed to. the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. .hey ayes have it

the clerk will report the nomination. richard f. griffin jr. of the district of columbia to be a member. report thek will cloture motion. >> in accordance with provisions of rule 22 is about to to bring to a close the nomination of richard f. griffin jr. of the district of columbia to be a member of the national labor relations board signed by 17 senators as follows. >> i move to proceed to a legislative session. .> all those in favor say aye all those opposed say no. .he ayes have it the motion is agreed to.

on the motionn is to proceed. all those opposed say no. .he ayes have it the motion is agreed to. nomination, sharon block of the district of columbia, to be a member. >> i have a cloture motion at the desk. we are by move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of sharon block of the district of columbia to be a member of the national labor relations board, by 17 senators as follows. >> without objection. >> i now move to proceed to legislative session. >> questions on the motion? all those in favor, say aye.

all those opposed say no. .he ayes have it >> i now move to proceed to executive session. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> national labor relations board. motion.e a cloture >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. senators undersigned hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination fort member of the national labor relations board, by 17 senators as follows. >> without objection.

the men and bet waived their requests without objection. but sun now move to proceed to the legislative session. >> the question is on the motion to receive. .he ayes have it the motion is agreed to. all those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the clerk will report the nomination. >> there is a cloture motion at the desk. centers --ndersigned

centers move to bring to close nomination, byhe 17 senators as follows. >> without objection. >> i now move to proceed to legislative session. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say ayethe ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. >> i moved to proceed to executive session. >> the question is on a motion to proceed. .ll those in favor say aye all those opposed, say no. the ayes have it. the park will report the nomination. >> department of labor, thomas

edward perez of maryland, to be secretary. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. >> i ask consent that the reading of names be waived. objection. >> i moved to per se to legislative session. -- i move to proceed. >> all those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. on the motionn is to proceed. all those in favor, say aye. all those opposed, say no. .he ayes have it

the motion is agreed to. >> i sent a cloture motion to the desk. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. bring to ay move to close the debate on the nomination of regina mccrary of massachusetts to be administrator of the environmental protection agency, by 17 senators as follows. , boxer, murray, udall of in mexico, sanders, white house, gillibrand, and shot. >> without objection. on the motion to

proceed. all those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed. republican leader. >> madam president, i have a consent that i think would set up these boats in a mucks -- in a much more expeditious way than the way the majority leader is proceeding. first, let me just say these are dark days in the history of the senate. i hate that we have come to this point. the majority leader break his word to the united states senate, and now our request for a joint meeting of all the senators has been set for monday night, a time when frequent -- when attendance around here is frequently quite spotty. in our obvious effort to keep as many of his members from hearing

the concerns and arguments of the other side as possible. it remains our view that for this to be the kind of joint session of the senate that it ought to be, given the tendency of the senate to have sparse attendance on monday night, to have this meeting on tuesday before it is too late. having said that, a more expeditious way to accomplish most of what the majority leader is trying to accomplish would be .chieved by the following i ask unanimous consent that on tuesday, wed 2:15, the senate proceed to consecutive votes on the confirmation of the following nominations. no. 102, johnson, to be a member 103 tonlrb, and number

be a member of the nlrb. if those nominees were confirmed, coupled with the two nominees illegally appointed, whose illegal appointments continue to the end of the year, the nlrb would have a full complement of five members and be able to conduct its business. i further ask consent that following those votes, the senate proceed to the cloture motion called on #99, that is pressed to be secretary of labor. proceedte immediately to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination. that would eliminate the's 30 hours, assuming cloture were invoked, on a very controversial nominee to be secretary of labor. further, the senate vote on the cloture motion filed on calendar

#98, mccarthy, to be epa director, and if cloture is invoked, the senate receives a vote on the nomination. also eliminating the 30 hours's cloture if cloture is invoked on mccarthy. i might add that the ranking member of the environment committee supports cloture on the mccarthy nomination. therefore it is reasonable to assume that cloture would be invoked and what is for a lot of my members, including myself, very controversial nomination. i further ask the consent then vote -- that the senate then for someone to be president of the export-import bank. if cloture is in vogue, the senate proceed to an immediate vote on the confirmation of that

nomination, again eliminating the 30 hours's cloture. wiley i ask consent that the following votes listed above the senate proceed to cloture votes on the remaining three filed cloture motions. whate the chair rules, this shows -- with this allows for the center work officially through a series of nominations in a quicker fashion than the majority leader has proposed. they would get their boats and there would not be a delay. this would only leave discussion and votes on the three remaining illegally, according to the federal court, the three remaining illegally appointed nominations. mr. president, that is my consent. >> mr. president, no matter how often my friend really talks about me not wrecking my word, i

am not going to respond talking about how many times he has broken his word. that does not add anything to this debate we are having here. all you have to do is look back at the record today. my members will be here monday night. i don't understand, unless this is part of the overall pattern, what does the company expect around here to not do anything today you can do tomorrow. mr. president, we are going to have a vote at 5:30. about theunned isn't thatber

something to cheer about? he is the one that is responsible. that is what is wrong here, mr. president. this is so transparent, what my friend has asked. to approve he wants to republican members. those first and only one democratic nominee. what does this mean? that means in a couple of months the republicans have a majority in the nlrb. i don't blame him for wanting that. they don't like the organization anyway. that they would like to get consent to create a ripple reject republican majority in the rock nlrb, but it is so obvious. i object. we are going to have a caucus monday at 6:00 in the senate

chamber. i would hope that something this important will have attendance. there.my caucus will be if nothing is resolved there, which the way things have been going today, likely will not be. we will have a vote sometime early tuesday morning on these nominees. the majorityent, leader always reminds me he can have the last word, and i am sure he can have the last word again. , heking for senator vitter did ask for a lot of information from the new prospective director of the epa, and so did senator boxer. she asked for 70,000 pages herself, but he was satisfied with the responses he got. this is how the process ought to work. this is how it has worked for decades. you try to get answers to

questions. you try to engage in some kind of prediction as to how someone might operate in the future. the majority leader has been saying all along that he wants the confirmation process to be speedy and for the minority to sit down and shut up. he believes that >> k believes that advise and consent means to sit down and shut up. cap from the nominees when i tell you to. the reason he has taken heat over this is because he has broken his word. we had resolved the rules of the congress last january. i know for a fact that even though he may get his 51 votes, many democrats are not happy where you are. that, thetell me

republican i think they would least want to ~ two, i know what is going on. they have been hammered. this is been personalized by the majority leader. me.want to do this for what is astonishing is that you're going to do this for me because you want to on the break my word. like i said in my own biography a huge years ago, you are going to help me look bad. you're going to help me break my word, violate what i said in my own biography, create unnecessary controversy in the u.s. senate, which is then major bills on a bipartisan basis all , this is hard to understand. this is why my members are

astonished. they are scratching their heads. who manufactured this crisis? -- wew who did it very know who did it. the guy on my left. this is a sad day for the u.s. senate. if we did not pull back from the the majority leader will be remembered as the worst winter ever. the leader of the senate who changed the body. it makes me sad. all of my members are angry, i am more sad about it. it is a shame that would've come to this. hope democratic senators are their member -- are there on monday night. if we sat down and try to understand each other, many members on the other side are

hearing a different version from the fax. largelylargely -- it is unrelated to reality. my friend the majority leader will have the last word. the difference between being a majority leader and a minority leader is that he gets the last word. i will yield the floor and listen to the last word. >> mr. president, the majority leader. >> no matter how many times he says that, he tends to not focus on what he hasn't to the senate. isi indicated earlier, there lots of time. we know it is replaying the there how he said that , onlybe no filibusters extra. circumstances -- only extraordinary circumstances. the only person i know who

thinks things are going fine here is my friend. people know the institution is being hammered hard. he does not have to worry about me rick i have not taken any -- he does nott have to worry about me, i have not taken any heat. out of my 54 senators, we have heard form -- from either 2425. the attendance was not perfect. mr. president, i do not went in to feel sorry for the senate, certainly not for me eric -- for me. i will continue to speak in a tone that is appropriate. i guess it follows a demagogue theory that the more you say something, it is also. mr. president, it is interesting that richards

saysright, who no one there is anything wrong with this man. both parties say he is a good guy. he has been waiting for seven to four days. -- four 724 days. this is the secretary of defense, 292 days. monetary governor, 169 days. nlrb, 573 days. the average time winning is nine months. president, as far as reshuffling the votes, he wants to have the majority of this nlrb to the republicans. i do not think that is a good idea. caucusgoing to have a monday. i have tried to had them before,

and i found him addicted to them. i'm happy to do that. the process works?rk i don't think so. good president, reic the nlrb is not republicans. i mentioned to the administration on several wocasions to send us up t nominees who are not illegally appointed. we cannot seem to get that done. the two attached to nlrb nominees and to mr. cordrey is that they were illegally appointed. the agencies have not been at a disadvantage. they are waiting.

do the job,iting to he is in office. is -- do we respect the law? said thatcourt has two nlrb members were illegally appointed. mr. cordrey was appointed on exactly the same day in exactly the same way. is it the senate completely lawless? do we not care what the federal courts say? stunned at what radar. -- at where we are. all of the other nominees are likely to be confirmed. what it comes down to is the majority leader is owing to break the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate in order to confirm the 51 votes, three illegally appointed

positions. us federal courts and told there unconstitutionally appointed. rationale for the option. that is why i say it is a sad day for the senate. also a sad day for america. the majority leader. >> illegally appointed. why did president obama recess appoint mr. cordrey and other members? we count cordrey as 571 days. elizabeth warren set up the program. they said no chance.

these are cadel tears -- you have reason supplements because the president had no choice if he wanted the team to work. they would be happy to present them weekly. -- to process them quickly. sorry, mr. president. there is not a chance we will let the nlrb nominate republicans. the law should not be dominated by republicans, and will not be. quicklyld be resolved print i have someone -- this can be resolved quickly. they can all vote against these on procedural basis,

they are holding out votes on people who are more qualified. this is strange. yourabout marshaling troops to do something wrong, it is that. if they are so worried about the rules changing, they should approve three qualified people. no one suggests there's anything wrong with any of them. there were reported because the republicans forced president obama to do that. there will be note -- there will be no further votes. the next vote is monday at 5:30 p.m.. >> i am trying to avoid laughter. the two nlrb nominees were sent on december 15, 2011. before the paperwork on here, two weeks later the president recessed appointed them.

delay? the paperwork had not even arrived. the committee could not do anything with them. a couple of weeks later, they were recess appointed. that is not my definition of a delay. by any objective standards. is -- he issue prepared to break the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate for three nominees who were unconstitutionally appointed according to the federal circuit court in washington dc. that, the majority leader proposes to use the nuclear option? and commentary on today's senate. >> the majority leader.

>> the senate crated by the republicans -- this role change, he gives talking about a rule change. therenstitution is clear is one paragraph that says that trees take two thirds of a vote. in the same paragraph, how many votes does it take to confirm a nomination? majority. that is in the constitution. since 1977, rules of changed 17 times. not my fancy things done by the committee, but in the senate. people who are qualified. if republicans want to avoid a problem, what they want to do is continue. the americanne

people are looking at this and that they think the senate is going just fine. this goes -- the status quo is good? look at the gallup poll. 80% -- 86% of the american people think the senate is bad is because they are not doing important things. i have been here a while. we have done good things assure. we should be doing lots of good things. immigration, a farm bill, a postal bill. we talk about word. i am glad we got that done. is aresident, that built shadow of its former self. -- that bill is a shadow of its former self. want is for the president of the united states, democrat

to be documented. >> ron johnson also spoke about the filibuster rules. >> i appreciate your opening remarks. also, the distinguished service that the nominees have provided the nation. i appreciate that you're willing to step up the plate and serve again. -- step up to the plate and serve again. i look forward to your testimony. what is being contemplated in the senate requires him it. i want to utilize my opening remarks to talk about what we discussed in our caucuses. the majority is often plating taking action -- is contemplating taking action in a way that i believe will be

damaging. it is on the basis of what we believe has to do with nominations. supposedly, republican obstruction. in the 111 congress, there were 920 nominations confirmed, only one was -- rejected. during the one with three congress, there have been 66 nominees confirmed, with only one rejected. hardly a record of its -- of obstruction. in cap nominees, in terms of the length of time, it has taken president obama's nominees 51

days. president clinton's administration was 55 days. president obama has been given due consideration. his nominees have been moved forward rapidly. in this term, president obama has confirmed 28 judges. that is compared to 10 judges from the president -- from the previous administration. i am not the only one who believes the new air option would be damaging. -- the nuclear option would be damaging. a nuclear option was the most important issue i ever worked on in my entire career because of that had gone forward, it would have destroyed the senate as we know it. it is that the only thing. read has mentioned.

-- harry reid has mentioned. changing the rules by breaking the rules is as far as you can get from a constitutional option. for people to suggest you can break the rules to change the rules is un-american. they only we could change the role in this body is there a role that now says to change a rule in the senate rules, to break a filibuster, it requires 67 votes. you cannot do 60 votes. you cannot do it with 51. now we are told the majority will do the nuclear option. the parliamentarian -- is illegal and wrong. you cannot do it. they would overrule it. -- we're going to do it because we have more votes than you. you would break the rules to change the rules, that is un- american. he said the american people in effect reject the nuclear option because they see it for what it is, and abuse of power. and arrogance of power. , and absolute

power absolutely corrupts. they are breaking the rules to change the rules am a regardless of legal affiliations. americans understand that this is a lyrical power grab. -- a political power grab. the nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. it is a fundamental paragraph of the majority. it is nothing more, nothing less. -- christopherid said that he believed such changes would be unwise. to my fellow senators, who have never served in the minority, i urge you to pause in your enthusiasm to change senate rules. neither one of us had the with senatorerving robert c byrd from west virginia.

was aatch from afar, i knowledge by someone who understood the rules. we do not have him speak to us during orientation, but he gave a famous speech in december of 1996. his words. heating. -- his words bear repeating. the constitution's frame was never intended for the senate to function like a house of representatives. in other words, a majoritarian body. as long as the senate retains the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people were remain secure. this and it was to be formed for open and free debate for the protection of political minorities. i have led a majority and minority great i can tell you there is nothing that makes me appreciate the senate's role as the protector of minority

interests. wase the republican party created in 1854, the senate has tinged and 14 times. each party has had the opportunity to appreciate first- hand the senate's role as guardian. the senate has insisted upon its members rates to unlimited debate. ghts tomembers' ri unlimited debate. it made the closing of debate to achieve by acquiring the majority. back then, the super majority was two thirds votes. now it is three fists. .- now it is 3/5 the frame is recognizing that a minority can be right him it and a majority can be wrong. the senate should be a true deliberative body. it should slow the passions of the house, hold them up to the

light, examine them, and perform debate, educate the public. saucerate is the intended to cool the cup of coffee from the house. it is the one place in government the minority is guaranteed a public airing of its abuse. is senate's form -- function as important as its legislative function. morefunction plays a important role now. it is often solemnly castigated for its inefficiency. it was never intended to be efficient. its purpose was and is to examine, consider, protect, and source of wisdom and judgment on the actions of the lower house and the executive. as such, the senate is the sender -- center of the constitutional system. it is more ports and then any or

all of us. -- it is more important than any or all of us. more important than the minority and majority leaders. more than 100 of us. 1843 people who have served in this body. each of us is -- has a solid response ability to remember that. of speech he gave in may 2010, he said the senate was the last fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech for more than two centuries. senators will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the priority of the moment. i have the same prayer. i came to the senate because this nation was facing enormous challenges.

in serving this nation, will face enormous challenges. we cannot afford to damage this important institution and i hope our colleagues on the majority side contemplate what they're doing. mr. chairman, i will turn it back over to you. >> senator harry reid has scheduled a closed-door meeting on monday at 6:00 p.m. to discuss senate rules on the full investor. he announced votes to end debate and move forward with confirmation votes on seven residential nominees. those include the nominees to have the labor department, and terminal protection agency, consumer financial reduction bureau, and several members of the national relations board. there were hearings this week on the boston red sox on the screen this weekend, portions will be on c-ings

span. that starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on saturday. at 8:00 p.m. on saturday, presidential obama will be at the center for arts and eumenides. on sunday, the confirmation for is the new fbi director.

negative exposed the of a sneeze on film. he fixed them to a cardboard backing and centered into the library -- and sent them to the library to be registered as a photograph. collection was an historical accident. the name was lost to time. we are grateful for what ever wiry bureaucrat decided -- what bureaucrat decided to register this is a photograph. eastern -- see this at 7 p.m. eastern on sunday on c-span three. look at america

like. i need a politics, business, entertainment, food, finance, art. i was interested in this recurring pattern you see with opera and newt gingrich and semel and -- sam walton. people didn't -- people begin in humble places. themselves as something new and find a a newand idea -- and find language and idea. through that, they build an empire. they cannot stop building it aired it is like it is an apparent it. you have to keep growing. as a person, as a brand, you have to keep growing. eventually, a decadence sits in with the language becomes a parody of itself during they no longer seem to be producing something good.

--e continue to produce gingrich keeps writing book after book. opera is on every issue of her magazine. they become celebrities where from here with, who dominate our imaginations anyway -- and have come to replace the institutions who have faltered. >> george packer intertwines the struggles of three americans &a.day at 8:00 on c-span's q >> some insist upon the idea that women could not predict the role in entering into the white house, but i found one observer who commented at the 186 or oh election that started with mr. lincoln when he was a poor young man. -- at the 1860 election that

started with mr. lincoln when he was a poor young man. mary lincoln was a determined woman she -- determined woman. she talked about mr. lincoln's role of entering the white house. she was a true political partner. >> as we continue our conversations on first ladies, we hear about the role of the first lady and how it has changed with the nation monday night on c-span. >> at the pentagon, the head of the u.s. >> good morning. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here this morning.

this is his third time here in the briefing room. he would make brief opening remarks and then open the floor to questions. please help him out by mentioning your name in who you are with. >> good morning. thank you for taking a few minutes to spend the day. i know there is a lot going on in the world. with theo spend time pay, responsibility, that is really good for me. since our last time together, a lot has happened in the pacific area. we had a significant provocation by north korea. a provocation got a lot of attention and has since calmed down. it is just be seen where the next ups will be by north korea.

for all of her allies in the secretary hagel provided a good review of the rebalance. -- we had a secure dialogue with china. we do that annually. we also continue to move forward in the asia-pacific with the rebalance effort. the men and women of the pay continue to defend u.s. interests. you should be proud of them. if you get a chance to stop by , we are always happy to have you. let me turn to your questions. i wanted to get your take on

the issues that have been raised with the joint pow command, the dead director -- the director putting it up to you. i'm wondering whether you would agree to the characterization, and what needs to be fixed with that command? >> i want to say that command has a very important mission. to do allacred duty we can to return the remains of our fallen love ones. condition for the u.s. military. it has a set number of experts. it is a global mission. they do it wherever remains may be found. we have had a number of blogs internally at the organization over time. particular, the congress in

2010 required them to up the number remains that were being recovered. we have had ongoing looks at how that organization needs to be structured, and how it can be most efficient. calling a dysfunctional, i do not agree with that. i think the areas where we need to take a hard look at how we have organized, and how the mission sets are prioritized. i am very supportive of the of the mission set. deepery supportive that review. the people inat the organization are good people. they have done a lot of good

work. they continue to look at very difficult conditions and difficult situations. i have looked at the executive report, and i can tell you i think it is one perspective. we need to take a broader look. >> what do you think needs to be fixed? you suggested that there are some issues that need to be looked at. >> i think that we need to make sure that the organization is given this unique mission set as efficient as possible. the fact that we have had this report, there are things that need to be looked at. we need to do the best we can to ensure they have the construct an oversight, and the right with the to do american people expect them to do. >> i want to ask you about north

korea. if i could just briefly follow up on this, i'm confused. i understand what you are saying. can you give us any specifics? the vietnamds, remains are a huge issue. is that not being done properly? what is it specifically that is not being done as you believe it should be? >> that is a great question. the issue for me is the capacity and the funding that we have, and the people that are able to do this mission set, have we prioritize where and how they pursue that mission, so we can get them on a print -- upper ramp to recovery? -- 200l was to go to to recoveries year. we are not approaching that. -- some is not their

fault. some is the political will of the nations we are operating in to provide the right access and support. it is a complex issue to try to get at it. to say that the organization is dysfunctional, i do not agree with that. we need to work harder to make sure that the goal that they have been given, they can achieve it. all remains our top priority. >> about that ask you about north korea? if you look back on the recent provocation, what conclusions have you come to about what kim jong-un was trying to do, trying to say? were they up to? many people say that they see signs now of another provocation in august as you come upon another military parade, more

equipment showing up for that. what you see going on? >> betake you look at history, they have a strategy of provocation where they institute a provocation against the south korea ends -- south korea, or the united states, get everybody worked up, and then they try to get a dialog that allows them to continue in power, and allows them to extract some deal out of it. we see this cycle going over and over with time. what has changed over that is that they are continuing to pursue nuclear capabilities. today, there will be another provocation.

permission onmore that. history will say there will be more. we are at, position north korea must be committed to the denuclearization. .nd verified as the bottom line of how you get into a negotiation with north korea at this time. >> what is the status of the missile? >> the status meeting, where it is that? boards capability? what is it real? is it real? what is it? is it cardboard and paint? >> they had a number of muscle ights -- types -- they have a number of missile types.

those,ious stages of they have had some that shown us that look like it might be real. we have not seen in the case of cbm, ager a demonstration of that. even when you extrapolate on the satellite launch the months ago, we went to the discussion back then. that particular demonstration, and that they were able to successfully did that with a demonstration to us that they have the ability to put something into a larger ballistic orbit. successfullycan take that technology and make it to where they are in their nuclear program has not been demonstrated. >> thank you. last month, you were traveling in india.

can you give us a sense, what are the challenges you face in building the military conditions ? >> that is a great question. we have a good upper trajectory with their military relationships at the surface level. continue to increase on both sides complexity to exercise we do together. you know, we had an initiative to determine how we could do early to vince -- early defense -- remove

we want, but a better understanding of how we can get past that. trajectory positive on both sides. >> no challenges? >> always challenges. too larget democracies. world,erent parts of the we've a very valuable view from each perspective of how the world looks. -- the fact that we have those different views makes it even more important to have good military relationships. they are positive. >> thank you. >> he spoke to the impact of sequestration. s in theadiness, asset

pacific. can you paint a picture of things what are like -- paint a picture of what things are like? >> secretary hegel's letter has been printed in the paper. it is a accurate description of what is happening to the joint force at large. he is always reached out to get our perspectives on what is happening to readiness. as this letter lays out, it is about the money. it is about the way the money is being managed. --is about our inability to whiche of sequestration, is the norm and budget cycles, to have a small term continuing resolution, it exacerbates the problem. it limits the ability for us to manage the money in a large

enforcement of services. , $52 billionmoney in execution, across the defense budget. because we are restricted on what we can take that money, what happens is that the services are then required to not overhaul ships, not fix airplanes. we are basically hollowing out of the force for sequestration. i came in the navy 41 years ago. i came in to a hollow navy at that time. it doesn't take a year to go from a high-performing military.

you can make it smaller if you want. you've got to allow us to do that efficiently. the sequestration is not allowing that to happen. kenny speak specifically to the cancel exercise a question mark >> we canceled exercises that were more u.s. centered. we maintain exercises with their allies. we actually dialed down the amount of participation we had with them. we were able to sustain the majority, the benefit of the exercise. it is not just about exercises. if you ask the chief of the air force, one third of the airplanes and their crews in the states are not flying. flying hours allocated the pacific, where i have things that we have concerns about, are being

decimated. thosehes the risk up for service members who are potentially out there in harms way. exacerbateng to through 2014 if sequestration is not relieved. economic dialogue that is going on this week, have you seen any tangible progress in terms of improving transparency between the u.s. and chinese military, or getting any better understanding of chinese intentions, or has this just been a dip on my neck dialogue -- diplomatic dialogue? >> the dialogue is still going on. secretary kerry and his counterpart, they put out their final communiqué. from my perspective, this is my second year involved in this dialogue. laster i was there and went to

beijing. i think the progress we are making between our two militaries is commendable. we areommendable because able to have a very good dialogue on areas where we converge. there is a lot of places were we converge as two nations. address matters where we diverge. you will find friction points. there where -- militaries can manage so diplomacy can continue to work. understand this and are committed to it. that alone is significant progress.

lesser known levels, we just finished operating side-by- side on a large monetary disaster exercise. it was sponsored. --the exercise, usa and forces were working side-by-side . that is substantial. will open port business for chinese ships in the future. as you know, the chinese have , to include them in a room in the pacific exercise in 2014. they have accepted that request. that is a big step for this chinese military and navy. multinationalr a

exercise that is basically run by the u.s. from the third fleet headquarters. area alongne in the with from home. they are excited about it to monday are dissipating -- they are excited about it. we wish to make success. are, we meet several times a year. we plan out a calendar of events that allows us to use our resources we have. veryve been on both sides good at staying consistent with .ur proposals >> a follow-up on that. it wasn't too long ago that the

chinese military was provocative if not confrontational. how would you describe the relationship between the u.s. military and the chinese today? provocative. it is that we have, particularly in the asia-pacific, in the areas that are crucial to the chinese homeland, we have been able to conduct operations around each other in a professional manner. some of that has to do with lessons we have learned a number of years ago by some of the unfortunate encounters. it is not mean that we do have the potential for miscalculation as relates to young commanders, findung ships that could we do have an ongoing dialogue with the chinese military about

themselves in difficult positions. what are the rules of the role of how we manage our relationships as the chinese navy gets larger and will come out further from their territory . u.s. -- presence in the asia-pacific is not going anywhere. i think that is a doable thing. at the top military commander, do you look at the chinese military as a growing potential threat, or opportunity? >> i look at it as an opportunity. an opportunity not realize, it could potentially could become a threat. i view it and approach it as an opportunity. that is the best path forward. >> since you last visited here,

the philippine governor has made an announcement about the updating of their modernization program. they said specifically they are going to continue broad investments in maritime facilities. has that been progress from military sales? they say they're going to invest , to host u.s.ure and japanese forces. philippine -- filipinos are committed. we are committed to assisting them where we can. in the time that i was here last, we have successfully -- tworred them to

cutters they have now. they found themselves lacking in their maritime awareness, their ability to manage the spaces they have. they have made up many islands. we are working with them. we are working to produce the resources necessary to understand what happens in their maritime domain and to control it. they are also looking to work we look at potential access agreements down the road. is the u.s. going to reopen clark, and i say we're not going bases in they more pacific. we are not in that business. we are for opportunities to candle our mutual interests.

access, to help them in their defense, and to be able to respond to a broad range of potential disasters, like that happened. closely, andg very making good progress. the national air and space intelligence man came up with their annual assessment of ballistic missiles -- missile threats around the world. they defy china as one of the most active ballistic man -- missile countries in the world. their you look at aggressive program? is it a reaction to their

perception of the air sea constant, or the perception of the asia-pacific strategy. >> i have to agree with the report. we have probably one of the most sophisticated ballistic missile programs. the principal has been in place a long time before there was any discussion about rebalance to the aza -- asia-pacific. i think their pursuit of that technology, they relatively inexpensive. the nearsuitable for are goings that they to encounter in defense of their homeland. the tub systems that are representative of the defensive ,ature, rather than a offensive

reaching out. i think as time goes on, assuming china stays on a trajectory of becoming a huge will overower, they time more their military acquisitions to be able to buy things and use things that go beyond their near shores. that. already seeing we are seen chinese operating in places beyond where we have seen before. we've seen them do successful operations alongside us. it is a natural thing. it is a -- as their economic power grows, they secure beyond their backyard. will increase to over 100

warheads by the next 15 years. homelandot too much defense. what is your perception of that? >> i would like to take a hard look at that before, today. -- before i comment today. >> you mentioned several times that china naval activity has been increasing around qualm in hawaii. can you speak to that? do you have concerns about miscalculation? there seems the misperception in china that air sea battle is and the chinese. i wondering if you are concerned about that is perception, and if so, what you are doing to correct it in your talks with

china. >> to the first question, it is a good thing. it boils down to a fundamental difference in the way we convention of how activities you should be will to do in economic zones. we believe the u.s. position is less constrained than one but the chinese believe. usesu look at all of these in the world, it turns out to be about one third of the oceans in the world. it turns out to be inside that, most of the major sea lines of communication. as i approach my counterparts, i say you do not want to have every country that owns a the z

conferring in any manner they want. it has got to be -- you have got to be will to look at your security interests. -- a differente interpretation. there is litigation as to who owns what. they would like to have a further restriction of anybody's military operation inside. .here is that it is a place we diverge. we talk about it. we talk about it from their perspective and why we feel the labor that we do. -- why we feel the way that we do. is air sea battle to me

something that every military should be doing. , and i would hope the american people expect us to be looking at the investments we have made in the hiring systems and our air force, navy, marine corps, and to be able to bring them together in ways that increases their capabilities and increases their effectiveness without having to buy more of the systems. that is what air sea battle is about. how do you better bring the systems together so that they can address the threats? no matter where the threats come from. every time that threat will proliferate. when a proliferates, the expectation is our force will be able to address it. it is the crux of the air sea battle. it is not a strategy. strategy.a

it is not directed at anyone country. systems be directed at countries are building that are difficult to deal with, the want to use our systems in the most productive way to do that. that anda perception all of these things, there is an attempt to contain china. the reality is that we have no forecast --ntion, for us to have a mental eric -- for us to the military containment strategy. have interest to go round the world. what to make sure those are well defended. >> thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> harry reid and mitch change todebated a senate rules for filibusters. senator reid he said he may take its option because prevented president obama from picking the people he wanted. senator mcconnell said the filibuster change would be unprecedented. this is next on c-span. the house passed a revised farm bill today about food stamp and nutrition spending. , a look at the military and political situation in afghanistan. the new senior root -- congressional porter